Pinnacle Capital Limited v Letoya Ole Kotikot & 2 others [2017] KEELC 1733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked the sale of land bought by someone who had no sale agreement or proof of payment, protecting the earlier registered owner.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case with chances of success because the suit land was registered in its favour before the 2nd Defendant purported to purchase it, and the 2nd Defendant produced no sale agreement or evidence of payment of Kshs. 6,300,000.
The Plaintiff bought the land from Musa Tintamei Pasha by an Agreement of Sale dated 21st April 2011 and was issued a Title Deed on 13th October 2011. The 2nd Defendant claimed to have purchased from the 1st Defendant but annexed no sale agreement and no proof of payment. The 1st Defendant filed no affidavit explaining how he owned the land before transferring it on 26th November 2013, and there was no official search showing his registration.
Irreparable injury not compensable by damages
The Plaintiff, having purchased the suit land before the 2nd Defendant purported to purchase it, would suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issued.
The court found that the land is unique and that the Plaintiff's prior registration and prior purchase meant that any dealing by the 2nd Defendant pending the suit would cause harm incapable of being compensated in damages. On this basis, the second limb of the interlocutory injunction test was satisfied and the application was allowed as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- A party relying on a purchase of registered land must produce documentary proof of the transaction, including the sale agreement and evidence of the official search showing the vendor's registration and payment of the purchase price.
- Where land was already registered in the Plaintiff's favour before the defendant purported to purchase it, and no official search shows the vendor was ever registered as proprietor, the Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case.
- A prior purchaser of land will suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages where injunctive relief is refused against a later purported purchaser.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 28th July, 2016 allowed as prayed
- 2.The 2nd Defendant restrained, whether by herself, her agents and/or servants, from selling, transferring, taking possession, alienating, subdividing and developing parcel Kajiado/Olekasasi/774 pending the hearing of the suit
- 3.A prohibitory order issued and registered against transfer of, and/or any other dealings with, the property pending the hearing and determination of the Application
- 4.A prohibitory order issued and registered against transfer of, and/or any other dealings with, the property pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 5.Costs of the Application provided for
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court to grant interim injunctive relief pending hearing of the suit (no specific provision cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pinnacle Capital Limited v Letoya Ole Kotikot & 2 others [2017] KEELC 1733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1733/eng@2017-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.